The civilization building is on the horizon for Islamic Republic of Iran

Doctor Mohammad sadegh Koushki is a PhD graduate of Political Thinking and a member of lecturers’ staff in the Khajeh Nasir Toosi University. He also teaches the Sociology of Politics in Iran, an MA course, in the University of Tehran, and the Political Geography of Iran and International Cultural Relations in the School of Journalism. In addition to his academic and research career, Koushki has many administrative management posts, among them are being a member of the Research Centre for Strategic Studies ( 2006-2007), director of the office of literature and art of the centre for Islamic republic archive of documents ( 2000-2005). He has authored a number of books, including A Leaf from the Garden (a documentary story of Islamic Revolution), Reflections on the Political Thinking of Imam Khomeini and A review of the history of the People’s Mujahidin Organization, from founding to Military phase and its terrorist activities according to Mojahed Periodical. The interview here has been done, with the examination of Imam Khomeini’s views on explaining martyrdom in Islamic Revolution paradigm as its focus. The interview has been done by Abolfazl Heidardoost.
There are many theories about the revolution in the world. We want to talk about these theories and explain the place of the Islamic Revolution within the discipline of these theories of revolutions.
If we want to expose revolution formally, naming the important revolutions in the world, we could name Russian Revolution, Chinese revolution or French revolution. Even revolutions such as Algerian Revolution which was totally anti-colonial and emancipating, or peaceful revolution led by Gandhi against Britain, or anti-colonial movements in Pakistan led by Mohammadali Jonah belong to the revolutionary events of the world.
Nevertheless, when speaking about the past, we have always witnessed in some points in the history that some part of people is unsatisfied with the status quo and wanted a change in the present situations. The issue is as old as the history of man. For example, slaves in the ancient Rome, led by Spartacus, rebelled against the cruelties and slavery, but they did not bring the alternative to betterment of the situation after. Actually it was a rebellion out of the rage which ultimately suppressed bloodily. On the other hand, we see that with the emergence of Prophets among tribes, changes are underway, which is, in nature, not classified as dissatisfaction from the status quo, but has a progressive nature which moves to the desired direction, like changes taking place after the coming of the Prophet Moses and so on. Now, if we are to present a full-fledged revolution as a fundamental and comprehensive change in all aspects of life of humanity, we should name the movements started by the Prophet Mohammad in the world of those days and then in the world after his movement. Verily, the movement by the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is an epitome of a comprehensive revolution in the roots of the audience’ fundamental believes, and we believe that the Innocent Imams (PBUT) are the successors of these revolution.
Also in the history of Iran, there are a substantial number of movements against the despotism. During the rule of Omayyad and Abbasid Caliphate, we see different movements, shaped in different points of Iran against their rule, some having roots in the ancient Iranian mentality, and some with roots in religious instructions. For example, Shuubiyeh movement in Iran happened in objections to the savagery of Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs towards Iranians, or Sarbedaran (literally meaning ‘group of devotees’) which is a formal attempt to change the political trend of Mongolian conqueror kings and establishing a state based on the religious tenets. Interestingly enough, when searching in the world of Islam, we see that the majority of movements for change, anti-despotism and reformist movements has inspired by Shiite mentality. In the Sunni world of Islam, there is not a major revolutionary and reformist movements. This can be attributed to the difference in the political perspectives of Shiite and Sunni communities. The political perspective of Sunnis is conservative, but pragmatist in nature, and very realist, acting according to the realities and even giving to the realities of the day, while, the horizon of Shiite is an idealist horizon.
Actually, the epic coloration is on the horizon for Shiites… and subsequently, it is idealistic, with desired horizons, for change in the status quo, and building the situation anew.
If I be not deceived, martyr Motahari has compiled a substantial body of research on the difference of perspectives between Shiites and Sunnis on their view of spirituality. Studying the political sources of the Shiites and Sunnis will reveal differences between the two, or a study of historical examples, again it will be known to us. For example, Ashura (the tenth day of Moharram, the first month in Hegira Calendar, in which Imam Hussein and his 72 companies were martyred in Karbala, now a city, few hours ride from Baghdad toward southwest) is the most typical of revolutionary and reformist movements and movements for reforming horizons which are to be reformed. Even parts of society to be reformed are determined. It is interesting that this movement is condemned among some thinkers of Sunni community. For example, a thinker like Imam Mohammad Ghazzali, a prominent figure, condemns Ashura movement and sees Yazid bin Moaviya rightful in suppressing movement by Hussein bin Ali (PBUH), yet he admits that Hussein bin Ali (PBUH) is a positive figure and that Yazid bin Moaviya is a negative figure. Or even Bin Khaldun, the father of modern sociology, Muslim thinker of 9th century AH ( 15th century AD), then living in Tunisia, Northern Africa, obviously takes side with Yazid in his introduction to his famous book. I present these to reveal difference in perspectives of the two.
In the present time, and in the contemporary world, we had different accounts of the revolutions, with dissatisfaction with the status quo being the common element among all of them. Some of these movements established a favourable horizon named Marxism, a society without class, with the majority of the worker individuals, Marxist revolutions can be classified among them, for example, Russian revolution, Chinese Revolution and other revolutions which took place in some ways in the world. Among them one can place Cuban revolution, the unsuccessful revolution by Cheguara in Latin America, or domino revolutions in the former Eastern Bloc countries, with some anti-colonialist reverberations in themselves, or for example, movements in Africa with Marxist believes in their centre, but with emancipation and justice in their core, against European colonialism. Some of these revolutions is of this nature, some has liberalist nature, i.e., they want change inside the society, prescribing the best horizon for it. For example, the liberalist French Revolution, which cemented modern thinking trends in France and then in the whole of Europe of that time. It was a revolution which, undoubtedly, inspired by the philosophic thinking, which in that time, overshadowed the politics, economics, and even culture. The modern liberal system is born inside that revolution and, gradually, the other revolutions belong to these two categories of revolutions. Either they were revolutions with leftist sentiments, anti-despotic, wanting justice and emancipating…either Marxist or liberalist, like Vietnamese revolution, which was not a political revolution, but an armed resistance against American occupation. Or Cuban revolution with the aim of changing a Pro-Us political system and establishing a system inspired by Soviet Union, with Marxist tenets and attempts to expand justice and values of this sort, or unsuccessful movements, led by Cheguara in Latin America, which were all aborted.
This was an image of the contemporary world we have witnessed in the 20th century. It is quite interesting that in such an atmosphere the Islamic Revolution of Iran happened, with the least similarities to other revolutions.
Is it for that reason that the Islamic revolution has been deemed a unique phenomenon in the world?
The answer is, yes. For these reasons: the Islamic Revolution is a movement with the civilization making in its horizon, i.e., it is an attempt to change the undesirable situation of present, by the conscious choice by people, and pave the way for building a civilization with religion on its base. This way, it is for the first time that we see that after the Prophet (PBUH) a horizon is being apparent for a civilization based on religion. Imam said that the fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty is not a victory, but we have only taken the first steps. In 1979, explaining the future of the revolution, he said that ‘do not constantly say we have Islamic state, our state has not yet become Islamic, we want to establish an Islamic state and a religious civilization’. And many analysts elsewhere have the same interpretation of the revolution. This is the bed for the living phenomenon and secrets behind its eternity. We witness that, on that time, the reason for living, its definition and better way of living is quite different with Imam’s definitions. In a time when the Western world, exploiting the facilities at its hand, has defined its standards of welfare as the reasons for living and happiness, and the path of welfare has been defined as acquiring wealth and capital, and this discourse has been dominant discourse of the day, Imam comes to the fore and changes the horizons of the living and changes the meanings of all these concepts. Martyrs are the examples of this kind of living and they are successful figures in this definition…what sort of role can we assign to elites in the revolution who explained these sort of concepts?
We counted parts of the factors for the revolution to be classified as the prominent as being totally populist. Other revolutions were elitist, with a number of elites being the moving force of the revolutions, and masses of people merely functioned as the pawns and solders of the revolution. But in Islamic Revolution, there were not such terms as elites or masses. In Islamic Revolution, all forces participant in the revolution, with a role and effective, are all elites. That we say they are elites; Imam has put codes for it. He said that ‘thou the wounded, are the leaders of this movement’. Elsewhere he said ‘thou men and women are leaders of this movements’, or ‘the leader of our movement is a twelve-year-old boy who…’ not all of these are exaggerations, but are novel images of a movement where all classes of society should be elite. Imam explains the revolution as task-based, like who knows his social duty, acts according to it, is elite. Who is elite? He who, unlike those who are busy with the worldly pleasures like eating, sleeping, and fornicating, comes to the centre and feels himself indebted to society, knows his abilities and believes himself, gains self-confidence and tries to be effective, to better the living. Based on the Shiite account of the change and evolution, inspired by the model of Prophet and Imam Ali (PBUT), Imam Khomeini led the revolution in a way that the prominent figures of the revolution were groceries, businessman, student, farmer, driver, and porter, illiterate, semi-literate, old, young and whole gamut of people. Based on this, Imam has seriously said that ‘our revolution is not relaying on the individual, but it relies on thinking’; he also has said that ‘if Rajaii and Bahonar are not among us, we have still God Himself. With the demise of a small servant of the revolution, no gap would be seen in the iron will of the nation’. He also writes in his will: ‘with a safe and happy heart I'm leaving. I am not worried about the next’. If revolution is task-based, it means that everyone should try to do his duty. He who does his duty is elite. Why? Because he feels indebted to the society, feels that he should have a role. He has a model, for he who has not a model, cannot be effective.
In the view of Imam, political and social participation is not a right, but a duty. When he says every citizen is obliged to participate in the revolution whatsoever, and with any level of ability, help the revolution, the perspective, is a perspective of the growth of the society. Here, Imam’s view is that individuals should understand, be persuaded, make decisions, want, and then move forward, in order for the revolution to be resilient. This movement is movement of society forward and Imam is resolute that the revolution is populist and all-embracing and all the masses participate. The quality and the pace of it is determined people themselves. The architect is a leader with the especial character of a High religious leader ( Velayate Faghi, a high cleric who, according to the a radical reading of Shiite exegesis, hires the Prophet and Imams, and consequently, has their authority and influence), who is actually is the highest of all Faghihs and has the most justice among them. He is an expert in religion and is an exegesist.
It is for this reason that we see that Marxists and Communists are writing books on the topic of the revolution, but this revolution degenerates into corruption, masses of people also degenerates into vices, but Imam has never written books for the revolution and never has he used the religion as a tool to win, but in his view, religion is the goal of the victory itself.
Imam did not write book in the name of the revolution, but thousands of pamphlets of his, of his pupils and ordinary people were distributed. For Imam, the important thing was that the Shiite version of Islam or according to other explanation by him, the ‘pure Islam’ to flourish among the public. If the circumstances demanded, he wrote, made speeches, and recorded his speeches and so on. He was said to leave the country and not a single country granted visa to him. He said in response that ‘if no country does not grant visa to me, I will hire a ship and will sail to international waters and act from there. Then our progress will depend on the extent to which, people get my message and how we communicate better’.
In the discussions above, you said that our revolution is the only revolution that was accomplished without guerilla-like fights…
Only did Imam ordered people to launch armed fighting in 20 of Bahman of 1357 (Feb, 9th, 1979), and only for defensive purposes; defending the Air Force staff, with the order that ‘for defending your own Brethren’. It means that it was in isolated cases that Imam ordered to fight with arm. He never permitted to sabotage, putting to blaze the public properties, but he discouraged it. Why? Because he said that our objective is making civilization. I want to say that in the discourse of the revolution what is the place of the culture of armed fight and martyrdom, bearing in mind that in practice, sacrifice and rule is not a proper way to learn, and only people are on the scene. It is interesting that in the Imam mindset, the Shiite political and religious thinking is tantamount to martyrdom, which is not mere being killed. An example of that kind of martyrdom is red death and being killed in one’s blood. In the thinking of Imam, the culture of sacrifice and martyrdom is a situation in which individuals attain such level of profound understanding of religion that they are ready to isolate themselves from all kinds of wants in the way of improving humanity, society and whole world. The death by martyrdom or natural death of these individuals makes no difference in the originality of their movement. The prominent example of this thinking was Imam himself. His death was not occurred by armed fight and there was no sign of disease in his death. But is there anyone who does not recognize Imam Khomeini as a martyr based on the notions explained by Imam himself/.
Martyr in what sense?
It was said that an elite is one who is willing to leave his worldly wants for the sake of his duty toward God, humanity and his own conscience. He feels himself dutiful before God, humanity and his own conscience. With this view of death, death and red death are ruled out and the quality of living gains importance. He who dies well is not martyr, but he who lives well, and with intuition, his death will be valuable, since he has lived well. He who choses better life, is a martyr. And the length of his living is not important, but the quality of his living. It may be few seconds, or it may be eighty years. Look at Horr (the commander of the forces sent to block the way to Imam Hussein (PBUH) in his journey to Kufa, who, later, felt profound sense of guilt and came under the command of Imam. He fought for Imam Cause in Ashura and was martyred by his former fellow soldiers) who opted for living well. How long was his well living? A quarter of an hour. But how about the quality of his life? The length of the history. Because he opted for well living and accurately living, he attains such a capacity to be martyr in Karbala. Like Wahab, a Christian who newly converted to Islam just for one week and his length of living is a week, but quality of his living is entire history of mankind.
In the horizon of Imam thinking, there is especial interpretation of a martyr. He states that ‘martyrs in their spiritual laughter, are benefited from the Godly cares’. This view is not a teleological political view. Imam said that ‘those who think that our soldiers were martyred to free Khorammshahr are snobs. Martyr is one for whom the improvement of humanity and betterment of life is important, and because this is important to him, he himself attains that level of complexity’. In Imam’s view, this maturity, being like those are benefited from the Godly cares afterlife; it is being revived, being alive for ever. It is being a source of effect for ever. Why, in Imam’s view, the shrine of martyrs is the source of remedy for the world les hommes libres?
(O Saki of Alast!) When, by the head of our tomb thou passest, ask for grace (for me),
For, the pilgrimage-place of the profligates (perfect lovers, comprehenders of the stages of love) of the world, (the tomb of Hafiz) shall be (translation by H.WILBERFORCE CLARKE, 1891) (Divan of Hafiz, Verse 205).

Now Imam says us that it is not a place for pilgrimage, but it is a place for remedy. It means that martyr is living; he lives in such a good way and with that quality that his life will be resilient during the history. To what time will they be beside their God and benefit from Godly cares? Forever. For whom will they be remedies? For those who, after martyrs, seek a better life, i.e., they will be living for eternity.
What is his definition of living well? Attempts by the man to be refined in a certain religious aspect. Because all men grapple for integrity, even the fraudulent who swindle each other, who fight with each other, seek for integrity. Their way is not correct, but they think that if they have worldly wealth, they will be complete. They monger wars to attain completeness. Some think that if they have all money in the world, they will be complete and some attain this by sensuality. But the most complete account of this belongs to religion. In this account, this is the martyr who wants refinement to all and he is ready to free himself from all his wants in the world. He is exactly knows that the aim of God, for man, is to being sublime. Martyr is one who implements the project of attaining the sublime.
Let’s come back to the present. That the culture of sacrifice and martyrdom is only attainable through being killed in the war and after that it is unattainable in any way. How one tastes martyrdom in the contemporary time?
Imam gives us an account of the martyrdom, which goes like this: ‘he, who gives his honor for refinement of the humanity, is a martyr. Also he who gives his life or his family is a martyr. So is one who gives his honor to revive Islamic and spiritual values, bears the scandals, but, instead of having wounds in his body, his soul is injured.
In the present world which we experience through our senses, where might be the place of the culture of martyrdom and sacrifice as a containing power against the threats? To what extent can it profit us and function for us?
Martyrdom is an innate phenomenon, a quality. We said that martyrdom is living better, not well dying. Who he lives well, by intuition, will die well too. In this strand of meaning, martyrdom is not well dying. If we are to have a good life with high quality in present times, we are obliged to know this culture and work to publish it. Either of us, or responsible authorities, government and media. When we say that martyrdom is to live well, we mean living well in all aspects. One whose living is good, his life is productive, producing science, technology and trains the skilful individuals. In the words of martyr Beheshti, when a nation attains such a level that it does not fear death, that nation is powerful. This nation does every dangerous thing which not any government would. One who has attained that level of not fearing death, there will be no hindrance in its way toward flourishing, be it criticism of the government inside or the international system, and in this way, it will not feel any hesitation. A society who has understood martyrdom in this sense as quality of life is an example of this verse of Koran which reads ‘those who told their God that fortify us, angels were sent to them’. They are under the blessing of God and God saith to them that ‘do not fearest thou’, there is no fear and sorrow for you, not any sadness. O those who not fearest thou, shall not fear and not that ‘do not fear, and they do not fear’. They will not sorrowful, nor will they not feel weakness. It is obvious that a nation so dynamic and creative and does not fear, is able to defend itself against all kind of threats. It will succeed in solving its problems. Is this problem is external attach? Or is it economic sanctions? It will solve. Why? Since it has attained the honour of not fearing death. Its view of life is task-based and this nation dies for its tenets and will die for it.
What is an order of God?
It is a duty put by God assigned to man to be done by him. This man is, of course, martyrdom-seeking. And in his discourse, martyrdom-seeking is doing his duty, not dying, either be it, in a day, to die, or in times, it may be being alive and fighting. For such a reason, all soldiers told Imam to pray for his martyrdom and Imam said to them that ‘ god willing, you will be a martyr’, saying that I pray for your success, i.e., for you to do your duty.

Thank you for the interview.
Source: Shahed-e-Andisheh Cultural and Research Quarterly, no 7, especial Issue: martyrdom and sacrifice in the views of Imam and the Revolution

Doctor Mohammad sadegh Koushki is a PhD graduate of Political Thinking and a member of lecturers’ staff in the Khajeh Nasir Toosi University. He also teaches the Sociology of Politics in Iran, an MA course, in the University of Tehran, and the Political Geography of Iran and International Cultural Relations in the School of Journalism. In addition to his academic and research career, Koushki has many administrative management posts, among them are being a member of the Research Centre for Strategic Studies ( 2006-2007), director of the office of literature and art of the centre for Islamic republic archive of documents ( 2000-2005). He has authored a number of books, including A Leaf from the Garden (a documentary story of Islamic Revolution), Reflections on the Political Thinking of Imam Khomeini and A review of the history of the People’s Mujahidin Organization, from founding to Military phase and its terrorist activities according to Mojahed Periodical. The interview here has been done, with the examination of Imam Khomeini’s views on explaining martyrdom in Islamic Revolution paradigm as its focus. The interview has been done by Abolfazl Heidardoost. There are many theories about the revolution in the world. We want to talk about these theories and explain the place of the Islamic Revolution within the discipline of these theories of revolutions. If we want to expose revolution formally, naming the important revolutions in the world, we could name Russian Revolution, Chinese revolution or French revolution. Even revolutions such as Algerian Revolution which was totally anti-colonial and emancipating, or peaceful revolution led by Gandhi against Britain, or anti-colonial movements in Pakistan led by Mohammadali Jonah belong to the revolutionary events of the world. Nevertheless, when speaking about the past, we have always witnessed in some points in the history that some part of people is unsatisfied with the status quo and wanted a change in the present situations. The issue is as old as the history of man. For example, slaves in the ancient Rome, led by Spartacus, rebelled against the cruelties and slavery, but they did not bring the alternative to betterment of the situation after. Actually it was a rebellion out of the rage which ultimately suppressed bloodily. On the other hand, we see that with the emergence of Prophets among tribes, changes are underway, which is, in nature, not classified as dissatisfaction from the status quo, but has a progressive nature which moves to the desired direction, like changes taking place after the coming of the Prophet Moses and so on. Now, if we are to present a full-fledged revolution as a fundamental and comprehensive change in all aspects of life of humanity, we should name the movements started by the Prophet Mohammad in the world of those days and then in the world after his movement. Verily, the movement by the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is an epitome of a comprehensive revolution in the roots of the audience’ fundamental believes, and we believe that the Innocent Imams (PBUT) are the successors of these revolution. Also in the history of Iran, there are a substantial number of movements against the despotism. During the rule of Omayyad and Abbasid Caliphate, we see different movements, shaped in different points of Iran against their rule, some having roots in the ancient Iranian mentality, and some with roots in religious instructions. For example, Shuubiyeh movement in Iran happened in objections to the savagery of Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs towards Iranians, or Sarbedaran (literally meaning ‘group of devotees’) which is a formal attempt to change the political trend of Mongolian conqueror kings and establishing a state based on the religious tenets. Interestingly enough, when searching in the world of Islam, we see that the majority of movements for change, anti-despotism and reformist movements has inspired by Shiite mentality. In the Sunni world of Islam, there is not a major revolutionary and reformist movements. This can be attributed to the difference in the political perspectives of Shiite and Sunni communities. The political perspective of Sunnis is conservative, but pragmatist in nature, and very realist, acting according to the realities and even giving to the realities of the day, while, the horizon of Shiite is an idealist horizon. Actually, the epic coloration is on the horizon for Shiites… and subsequently, it is idealistic, with desired horizons, for change in the status quo, and building the situation anew. If I be not deceived, martyr Motahari has compiled a substantial body of research on the difference of perspectives between Shiites and Sunnis on their view of spirituality. Studying the political sources of the Shiites and Sunnis will reveal differences between the two, or a study of historical examples, again it will be known to us. For example, Ashura (the tenth day of Moharram, the first month in Hegira Calendar, in which Imam Hussein and his 72 companies were martyred in Karbala, now a city, few hours ride from Baghdad toward southwest) is the most typical of revolutionary and reformist movements and movements for reforming horizons which are to be reformed. Even parts of society to be reformed are determined. It is interesting that this movement is condemned among some thinkers of Sunni community. For example, a thinker like Imam Mohammad Ghazzali, a prominent figure, condemns Ashura movement and sees Yazid bin Moaviya rightful in suppressing movement by Hussein bin Ali (PBUH), yet he admits that Hussein bin Ali (PBUH) is a positive figure and that Yazid bin Moaviya is a negative figure. Or even Bin Khaldun, the father of modern sociology, Muslim thinker of 9th century AH ( 15th century AD), then living in Tunisia, Northern Africa, obviously takes side with Yazid in his introduction to his famous book. I present these to reveal difference in perspectives of the two. In the present time, and in the contemporary world, we had different accounts of the revolutions, with dissatisfaction with the status quo being the common element among all of them. Some of these movements established a favourable horizon named Marxism, a society without class, with the majority of the worker individuals, Marxist revolutions can be classified among them, for example, Russian revolution, Chinese Revolution and other revolutions which took place in some ways in the world. Among them one can place Cuban revolution, the unsuccessful revolution by Cheguara in Latin America, or domino revolutions in the former Eastern Bloc countries, with some anti-colonialist reverberations in themselves, or for example, movements in Africa with Marxist believes in their centre, but with emancipation and justice in their core, against European colonialism. Some of these revolutions is of this nature, some has liberalist nature, i.e., they want change inside the society, prescribing the best horizon for it. For example, the liberalist French Revolution, which cemented modern thinking trends in France and then in the whole of Europe of that time. It was a revolution which, undoubtedly, inspired by the philosophic thinking, which in that time, overshadowed the politics, economics, and even culture. The modern liberal system is born inside that revolution and, gradually, the other revolutions belong to these two categories of revolutions. Either they were revolutions with leftist sentiments, anti-despotic, wanting justice and emancipating…either Marxist or liberalist, like Vietnamese revolution, which was not a political revolution, but an armed resistance against American occupation. Or Cuban revolution with the aim of changing a Pro-Us political system and establishing a system inspired by Soviet Union, with Marxist tenets and attempts to expand justice and values of this sort, or unsuccessful movements, led by Cheguara in Latin America, which were all aborted. This was an image of the contemporary world we have witnessed in the 20th century. It is quite interesting that in such an atmosphere the Islamic Revolution of Iran happened, with the least similarities to other revolutions. Is it for that reason that the Islamic revolution has been deemed a unique phenomenon in the world? The answer is, yes. For these reasons: the Islamic Revolution is a movement with the civilization making in its horizon, i.e., it is an attempt to change the undesirable situation of present, by the conscious choice by people, and pave the way for building a civilization with religion on its base. This way, it is for the first time that we see that after the Prophet (PBUH) a horizon is being apparent for a civilization based on religion. Imam said that the fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty is not a victory, but we have only taken the first steps. In 1979, explaining the future of the revolution, he said that ‘do not constantly say we have Islamic state, our state has not yet become Islamic, we want to establish an Islamic state and a religious civilization’. And many analysts elsewhere have the same interpretation of the revolution. This is the bed for the living phenomenon and secrets behind its eternity. We witness that, on that time, the reason for living, its definition and better way of living is quite different with Imam’s definitions. In a time when the Western world, exploiting the facilities at its hand, has defined its standards of welfare as the reasons for living and happiness, and the path of welfare has been defined as acquiring wealth and capital, and this discourse has been dominant discourse of the day, Imam comes to the fore and changes the horizons of the living and changes the meanings of all these concepts. Martyrs are the examples of this kind of living and they are successful figures in this definition…what sort of role can we assign to elites in the revolution who explained these sort of concepts? We counted parts of the factors for the revolution to be classified as the prominent as being totally populist. Other revolutions were elitist, with a number of elites being the moving force of the revolutions, and masses of people merely functioned as the pawns and solders of the revolution. But in Islamic Revolution, there were not such terms as elites or masses. In Islamic Revolution, all forces participant in the revolution, with a role and effective, are all elites. That we say they are elites; Imam has put codes for it. He said that ‘thou the wounded, are the leaders of this movement’. Elsewhere he said ‘thou men and women are leaders of this movements’, or ‘the leader of our movement is a twelve-year-old boy who…’ not all of these are exaggerations, but are novel images of a movement where all classes of society should be elite. Imam explains the revolution as task-based, like who knows his social duty, acts according to it, is elite. Who is elite? He who, unlike those who are busy with the worldly pleasures like eating, sleeping, and fornicating, comes to the centre and feels himself indebted to society, knows his abilities and believes himself, gains self-confidence and tries to be effective, to better the living. Based on the Shiite account of the change and evolution, inspired by the model of Prophet and Imam Ali (PBUT), Imam Khomeini led the revolution in a way that the prominent figures of the revolution were groceries, businessman, student, farmer, driver, and porter, illiterate, semi-literate, old, young and whole gamut of people. Based on this, Imam has seriously said that ‘our revolution is not relaying on the individual, but it relies on thinking’; he also has said that ‘if Rajaii and Bahonar are not among us, we have still God Himself. With the demise of a small servant of the revolution, no gap would be seen in the iron will of the nation’. He also writes in his will: ‘with a safe and happy heart I'm leaving. I am not worried about the next’. If revolution is task-based, it means that everyone should try to do his duty. He who does his duty is elite. Why? Because he feels indebted to the society, feels that he should have a role. He has a model, for he who has not a model, cannot be effective. In the view of Imam, political and social participation is not a right, but a duty. When he says every citizen is obliged to participate in the revolution whatsoever, and with any level of ability, help the revolution, the perspective, is a perspective of the growth of the society. Here, Imam’s view is that individuals should understand, be persuaded, make decisions, want, and then move forward, in order for the revolution to be resilient. This movement is movement of society forward and Imam is resolute that the revolution is populist and all-embracing and all the masses participate. The quality and the pace of it is determined people themselves. The architect is a leader with the especial character of a High religious leader ( Velayate Faghi, a high cleric who, according to the a radical reading of Shiite exegesis, hires the Prophet and Imams, and consequently, has their authority and influence), who is actually is the highest of all Faghihs and has the most justice among them. He is an expert in religion and is an exegesist. It is for this reason that we see that Marxists and Communists are writing books on the topic of the revolution, but this revolution degenerates into corruption, masses of people also degenerates into vices, but Imam has never written books for the revolution and never has he used the religion as a tool to win, but in his view, religion is the goal of the victory itself. Imam did not write book in the name of the revolution, but thousands of pamphlets of his, of his pupils and ordinary people were distributed. For Imam, the important thing was that the Shiite version of Islam or according to other explanation by him, the ‘pure Islam’ to flourish among the public. If the circumstances demanded, he wrote, made speeches, and recorded his speeches and so on. He was said to leave the country and not a single country granted visa to him. He said in response that ‘if no country does not grant visa to me, I will hire a ship and will sail to international waters and act from there. Then our progress will depend on the extent to which, people get my message and how we communicate better’. In the discussions above, you said that our revolution is the only revolution that was accomplished without guerilla-like fights… Only did Imam ordered people to launch armed fighting in 20 of Bahman of 1357 (Feb, 9th, 1979), and only for defensive purposes; defending the Air Force staff, with the order that ‘for defending your own Brethren’. It means that it was in isolated cases that Imam ordered to fight with arm. He never permitted to sabotage, putting to blaze the public properties, but he discouraged it. Why? Because he said that our objective is making civilization. I want to say that in the discourse of the revolution what is the place of the culture of armed fight and martyrdom, bearing in mind that in practice, sacrifice and rule is not a proper way to learn, and only people are on the scene. It is interesting that in the Imam mindset, the Shiite political and religious thinking is tantamount to martyrdom, which is not mere being killed. An example of that kind of martyrdom is red death and being killed in one’s blood. In the thinking of Imam, the culture of sacrifice and martyrdom is a situation in which individuals attain such level of profound understanding of religion that they are ready to isolate themselves from all kinds of wants in the way of improving humanity, society and whole world. The death by martyrdom or natural death of these individuals makes no difference in the originality of their movement. The prominent example of this thinking was Imam himself. His death was not occurred by armed fight and there was no sign of disease in his death. But is there anyone who does not recognize Imam Khomeini as a martyr based on the notions explained by Imam himself/. Martyr in what sense? It was said that an elite is one who is willing to leave his worldly wants for the sake of his duty toward God, humanity and his own conscience. He feels himself dutiful before God, humanity and his own conscience. With this view of death, death and red death are ruled out and the quality of living gains importance. He who dies well is not martyr, but he who lives well, and with intuition, his death will be valuable, since he has lived well. He who choses better life, is a martyr. And the length of his living is not important, but the quality of his living. It may be few seconds, or it may be eighty years. Look at Horr (the commander of the forces sent to block the way to Imam Hussein (PBUH) in his journey to Kufa, who, later, felt profound sense of guilt and came under the command of Imam. He fought for Imam Cause in Ashura and was martyred by his former fellow soldiers) who opted for living well. How long was his well living? A quarter of an hour. But how about the quality of his life? The length of the history. Because he opted for well living and accurately living, he attains such a capacity to be martyr in Karbala. Like Wahab, a Christian who newly converted to Islam just for one week and his length of living is a week, but quality of his living is entire history of mankind. In the horizon of Imam thinking, there is especial interpretation of a martyr. He states that ‘martyrs in their spiritual laughter, are benefited from the Godly cares’. This view is not a teleological political view. Imam said that ‘those who think that our soldiers were martyred to free Khorammshahr are snobs. Martyr is one for whom the improvement of humanity and betterment of life is important, and because this is important to him, he himself attains that level of complexity’. In Imam’s view, this maturity, being like those are benefited from the Godly cares afterlife; it is being revived, being alive for ever. It is being a source of effect for ever. Why, in Imam’s view, the shrine of martyrs is the source of remedy for the world les hommes libres? (O Saki of Alast!) When, by the head of our tomb thou passest, ask for grace (for me), For, the pilgrimage-place of the profligates (perfect lovers, comprehenders of the stages of love) of the world, (the tomb of Hafiz) shall be (translation by H.WILBERFORCE CLARKE, 1891) (Divan of Hafiz, Verse 205). Now Imam says us that it is not a place for pilgrimage, but it is a place for remedy. It means that martyr is living; he lives in such a good way and with that quality that his life will be resilient during the history. To what time will they be beside their God and benefit from Godly cares? Forever. For whom will they be remedies? For those who, after martyrs, seek a better life, i.e., they will be living for eternity. What is his definition of living well? Attempts by the man to be refined in a certain religious aspect. Because all men grapple for integrity, even the fraudulent who swindle each other, who fight with each other, seek for integrity. Their way is not correct, but they think that if they have worldly wealth, they will be complete. They monger wars to attain completeness. Some think that if they have all money in the world, they will be complete and some attain this by sensuality. But the most complete account of this belongs to religion. In this account, this is the martyr who wants refinement to all and he is ready to free himself from all his wants in the world. He is exactly knows that the aim of God, for man, is to being sublime. Martyr is one who implements the project of attaining the sublime. Let’s come back to the present. That the culture of sacrifice and martyrdom is only attainable through being killed in the war and after that it is unattainable in any way. How one tastes martyrdom in the contemporary time? Imam gives us an account of the martyrdom, which goes like this: ‘he, who gives his honor for refinement of the humanity, is a martyr. Also he who gives his life or his family is a martyr. So is one who gives his honor to revive Islamic and spiritual values, bears the scandals, but, instead of having wounds in his body, his soul is injured. In the present world which we experience through our senses, where might be the place of the culture of martyrdom and sacrifice as a containing power against the threats? To what extent can it profit us and function for us? Martyrdom is an innate phenomenon, a quality. We said that martyrdom is living better, not well dying. Who he lives well, by intuition, will die well too. In this strand of meaning, martyrdom is not well dying. If we are to have a good life with high quality in present times, we are obliged to know this culture and work to publish it. Either of us, or responsible authorities, government and media. When we say that martyrdom is to live well, we mean living well in all aspects. One whose living is good, his life is productive, producing science, technology and trains the skilful individuals. In the words of martyr Beheshti, when a nation attains such a level that it does not fear death, that nation is powerful. This nation does every dangerous thing which not any government would. One who has attained that level of not fearing death, there will be no hindrance in its way toward flourishing, be it criticism of the government inside or the international system, and in this way, it will not feel any hesitation. A society who has understood martyrdom in this sense as quality of life is an example of this verse of Koran which reads ‘those who told their God that fortify us, angels were sent to them’. They are under the blessing of God and God saith to them that ‘do not fearest thou’, there is no fear and sorrow for you, not any sadness. O those who not fearest thou, shall not fear and not that ‘do not fear, and they do not fear’. They will not sorrowful, nor will they not feel weakness. It is obvious that a nation so dynamic and creative and does not fear, is able to defend itself against all kind of threats. It will succeed in solving its problems. Is this problem is external attach? Or is it economic sanctions? It will solve. Why? Since it has attained the honour of not fearing death. Its view of life is task-based and this nation dies for its tenets and will die for it. What is an order of God? It is a duty put by God assigned to man to be done by him. This man is, of course, martyrdom-seeking. And in his discourse, martyrdom-seeking is doing his duty, not dying, either be it, in a day, to die, or in times, it may be being alive and fighting. For such a reason, all soldiers told Imam to pray for his martyrdom and Imam said to them that ‘ god willing, you will be a martyr’, saying that I pray for your success, i.e., for you to do your duty. Thank you for the interview. Source: Shahed-e-Andisheh Cultural and Research Quarterly, no 7, especial Issue: martyrdom and sacrifice in the views of Imam and the Revolution